It has come to my attention that the IOMICA Chairman has called for each NCA to resubmit their votes for the 2009 AGM in respect of the Exec positions with instruction on how they would like the votes cast.

While the validity of these resolutions can be debated ad infinitum, it doesnâ€™t change the fact that the intent of those resolutions is clear, that each IOMICA AGM since 2004 has had votes counted according to those resolutions and that the votes for the 2009 AGM should be similarly counted.

I am quite flabbergasted that the Exec now wish to ignore the resolutions that have provided a perfectly sensible method of applying NCA votes and ask each NCA how they would like their votes cast. A method that, however you read the resolutions, isnâ€™t permitted at all!

I question the validity of this request. Is it the will of the majority of the Exec?

I understand, unofficially of course, that the votes have been recounted and the results differ from those published.

I would request the Exec make those results public, that those people in office that no longer should be stand down and hand over to the rightful holders of those offices.

Anders Wallin had the task of officially counting the votes. It has been clear for some days now that the votes were incorrectly counted, with Bruce Andersen incorrectly identified as the new Chairman.

Anders has provided a corrected re-count of the votes, and this shows that Alfonso Moreno is in fact elected as the new Chairman.

It is also clear that Alfonso and his supporters are unhappy with the incorrect first count, and that Bruce and his supports are unhappy with the corrected re-count.

In my opinion, there is only one way to handle this situation. Both Bruce and Alfonso must step away, and the task of determining the true outcome of the election must be handed over to an independent arbitrator, supported by those members of the Exec whose election is not in dispute and by those past members of the Exec who had responsibility for vote counting in both these and in past elections.

I am confident that ISAF can provide the necessary arbitrator. In my view, arbitration must be initiated as a matter of the utmost urgency before further damage is done.

Andy: I too was hoping to do nothing but watch from the sidelines but now that you have spoken I have to respectfully disagree.

Please read the official documents that govern our class--the IOMICA constitution and regulations. Nowhere in those documents is it specified that that the Executive or World Council can pass binding "resolutions". They are not even mentioned.

Neither the Executive or World Council during the term of Greg Willis or you enacted "resolutions". It would seem that the whole concept of "resolutions" was created by a past Executive/World Council and never used again.

As proof of my point, note that in the text of the "block voting resolutions" you reference they are specifically described as "guidelines" that express the "intent" of the World Council of 2003/2004. That is all that they are. They were never incorporated as changes in the constitution and regulations by a proper vote. They are not mandatory today.

None of this mattered in all of our past elections since the voting for contested offices was never even close. Apparently today that is not the case.

In accordance with the class constitution and regulations, it is clearly not within the power of the IOMICA Executive, past or present, to dictate how each individual NCA today may allocate its votes. This decision would appear to rest with the individual NCAs. Each NCA is entitled to determine how its votes may be cast. Each NCA has the individual right to vote all of its votes in a block or to split them proportionally.

If an NCA chooses to follow the procedures suggested by the 2004 block voting resolutions that's great. If an NCA wants to proportionally split all its votes that is also fine. To the extent this choice was not made clear to the NCAs before our last election I believe it should be done so now and each NCA should be asked to resubmit their votes divided how each NCA chooses.

Most important, it should be pointed out that this unfortunate situation was not created by any of the candidates who stood for office in 2009. Hopefully, the World Council will sort this matter out shortly and we can all move forward together. If the World Council can not do so, the idea of an independent arbitrator or committee as put forth by Lester Gilbert is a good one.

For the good of us all, no matter what the outcome, this matter should be resolved quickly and without anger. Win or lose there should also be a place in the IOMICA leadership for all of those who stood for office in 2009, they all have something worthwhile to contribute.

Some owners might wonder what the fuss is about. If an NCA votes all its block according to the majority, or if it votes its block pro rata in proportion to the owner vote, what does it matter? The short answer is, it doesn't, provided everyone knows the counting method in advance of the ballot.

However, there is a suggestion that the NCA Representatives should now be asked to choose the counting method they personally wish to use for counting the votes of their country. The problem is, the owner votes are known and are public. Instead of being bound by the objective and pre-established counting method set out in the WC Resolutions and used in all voting at annual IOMICA World Councils since the association began, it is suggested that NCA Representatives can change the counting method to suit the outcome they may personally desire. This is obviously a very bad idea.

The NCA Representatives -- the World Council -- should refuse to have anything to do with finding a different way to count the votes afterwards. Otherwise they may be accused of improper interference in the outcome of a ballot.

Respectfully, I don't believe Lester has framed the issue before us correctly.

The question is not whether NCA representatives can "personally" choose how their country's votes should be allocated. That is clearly not a desired result.

The question is does IOMICA have the authority to determine how each individual NCA's votes should be divided or does that power rest in each NCA?

The IOMICA constitution and regulations do not empower the Executive or World Council to decide for individual countries how their votes should be allocated.

The 2004 Block Voting Resolutions are at best "guidelines". They were not enacted in a manner that makes them mandatory on each NCA.

It would appear then that the determination of how to divide a country's votes is a matter to be determined within that country by its own NCA.

Regardless, this is an unfortunate situation for IOMICA. Challenged and inconclusive election results are not good for any organization. We have also never had an election this close before.

I would strongly urge that the candidates attempt to reach agreement among themselves on how to resolve this matter. Whether that is by a re-vote or a re-allocation of votes or arbitration or even having two chairpersons, so long as everyone involved is in agreement, we can all go forward together and without controversy. I fear that any imposed solution will only leave us with continuing bad feelings.

Just so that we are absolutely clear on this, is it intended that all votes cast for the various contested posts will be investigated by the arbitrator or is it only those cast for the post of chairman? If there is any contention at this point, better that the whole thing is made unequivocal and an end put to speculation. Better for the class as a whole and better for the officers in post. Lets just do it and move on please.

RoyL wrote: I would strongly urge that the candidates attempt to reach agreement among themselves on how to resolve this matter.

Dear RoyL,

The next morning after the meeting I sent Bruce an e mail because I wasnâ€™t sure if he counted the votes properly. As he did not answer me I sent him another e mail 5 days later, which he also did not answer. Only when he made the first draft of the minute public in the web and I sent an email with copy to the rest of the Exec and the WC members I got my first answer. That was 15 days after the meeting.

But what I do not undestand is that I was in BAR with him and that he did not want to talk about it. You and me have some different points of view about IOMICA but I am glad that we were talking there because I am sure that we agree more than we disagree.

Now the problem is public and we have to find a solution. Let us see what happens in the following days. The Secretary is going to count the votes again.

Because of the confusion regarding how votes were submitted, post-processed, and recorded, I have asked the NCA representatives to re-submit their votes, specifying if they want them voted as a block or split between the candidates.

The resolutions all passed with high enough majorities that their votes do not have to be re-submitted.

This process will conclude in 2 weeks.

Hopefully, we can put this behind us and get on with the rest of the important tasks at hand (one of which is to make sure this never happens again!).

What's done is done and I agree with Bruce that we now have to concentrate all of our energy and efforts in resolving the unfortunate situation in which we find ourselves...

For what it's worth and without any thought or concern as to whose cause this furthers (simply because I was a member of the Exec at the time that these very questions have been debated and my opinion on the subject has not changed since then): I don't feel (and never had) that it makes ANY sense whatsoever to ask NCAs how they want their votes allocated. It is not up to NCAs to decide that... If it were (up to them), then EACH question on the owner ballot should be followed by a "sub-question" as per how should the NCA vote be allocated for that particular resolution/position. Failing that, asking NCA reps (now!) how would they like their vote allocated is not democratic... It'd be a decision made by one person.

But even aside from that - in the electoral college system we use it simply NEVER makes sense to split votes... This is the same system used in US elections. Do individual states get to choose how to allocate their block? Nope! Texas gets 34 votes, Florida 27, California 55, etc. and whichever candidate gets the state, he/she gets the total block. The reason it makes NO sense to ask the NCAs how to allocate their votes is that, essentially, you are asking them whether or not they want to reduce the influence of their NCA within IOMICA as a whole which absolutely makes no sense at all! If NCA held proper elections and determined that majority of their members prefer Option A (or Candidate X) then the best way to serve your constituency is to allocate your full voting strength towards the wishes of your majority.

As an example - picture two large NCAs each with a block of 10 votes within IOMICA electoral college (which is about as big as we have save, I think, for GBR)... NCA #1 voted for candidate X while NCA #2 voted for candidate Y.

[Initially I wrote down candidate A and candidate B - but then I realized that this could be interpreted as Alfonso and Bruce so I quickly changed it to X and Y. All events portrayed in this example are completely fictional and any resemblance to real events or persons is entirely coincidental]

Continuing, then... Let's assume that both NCAs supported their respective candidates with a 60% majority (which is fairly significant - 20% swing). The only difference is that the rep for NCA #1 is savvy and he allocates their full block to Mr. X, while the rep for NCA #2 is not and he thinks it's more "fair" to split their block... The result is that, despite identical (but opposite) results - Mr. X leads so far 16:4.

The result? The rep for NCA #2 inadvertently hurt his constituency by his decision.

The point? Since we operate under the assumption that NCAs and their reps should/must/will promote best interests of their members we do not give options that are clearly detrimental to their interests... Election regulations are clearly spelled out in advance (and by example of prior years) - and should be followed...

The above is also the reason why Florida is NOT asked how they want their 27 electoral votes "allocated" even with the slimmest of margins... Because, even with the slimmest of margins - if that vote was, say, for their Governer - the Governer would have gotten elected. Therefore, if it is/was for the President (and therefore a part of the larger electoral college) - Florida's choice for the President is whoever gets even 1 more vote than the other guy and once that is known, ALL 27 votes are allocated to that candidate (doing ANYTHING else would not be following the wishes of the voters of Florida).

Finally, I saw references to resolution we had voted on in 2004 having to do with block voting... This was NEVER about whether votes should be split or fully allocated but rather about minimum margins before an NCA should be allowed to allocate their entire block. I remember being against it at the time (for reasons outlined above). It is unfortunate that it mentions "vote splitting" and thus creates some ambiguity in the form of precedent (for vote splitting)... What it should have said is that an NCA should abstain from voting if majority does not pass the margin (and the margin should have been far smaller than 10% which, I think, is a clear victory for one side)... Nevertheless, it had passed as written and, therefore, we should honour it now...

Some changes we should think about for the future might involve striking that 2004 resolution (or reducing the margin and stipulating abstinance) AND removing the votes of the Exec from the World Council since it doesn't make sense (to me) that they should be allowed to vote for themselves or for resolutions they themselves put forward and, altogether, count as a moderately large country (I think I'm entitled to say this because I felt this way even when I was on the Exec way back when ).

But those are some thoughts for another time... Right now, we should focus on getting this sorted out... Arbitration is one idea - however, I think it should be unnecessary. The regulations are clear, votes are in - I don't understand what else we need? Whichever path is taken and whatever the outcome - I hope that both (all?) candidates understand the importance of endorsing the eventual Chairman (!!!!!!) whoever that may be...

Never trust a Canadian to explain the very, very strange US electoral college system (lol)!

Not that it matters to us in IOMICA, but Marko has it exactly backward as to how the electoral college system works in the United States.

Fact is each individual state determines for itself as to how it desires to allocate its electoral college votes. A state can decide to have all its votes go to one candidate or it can decide to split votes between candidates.

For just the reasons Marko suggests, most states decide to vote all their electoral college votes as a block, some don't and split their votes. Just today, there is a major controversy in California over a movement to require that state to proportionally allocate its electoral college votes.

Just shows that our little problems are mirrored in the real world. Question is who has the authority to make voting allocations? Should it be the US federal government (i.e. the IOMICA Executive) or should it be the various individual states (our NCAs)? In the United States that power specifically resides in the individual states not the federal government. Given the controversial history and questioned legality of the 2004 block voting "resolutions" it would seem that the proper standard to apply to IOMICA is not nearly so clear.

Unfortunately, close elections all too often cause unanticipated problems. As I said before, it seems to me that there should be some solution that involves all the candidates in the running of IOMICA; they all have something valuable to offer us. One thing I do know for sure is that this a matter that should be worked out among the candidates themselves and should involve as few outside "experts" (like me, lol) as possible.

I see that all members of the previous executive voted for continuity ... (for chairman).

In my point of view, be strictly applied to read what the constitution of IOMICA say.

And if there is to be a certain continuity, let's look at the Rules of the Snipe Class (2nd oldest in the world) for Chairman (Comodore) there is always 3 gentlemen: Comodore , Past Commodore,and Next Commodore.

The person in charge of measurement in BAR was a lady named Renata (not sure of her last name - the Race Organizers would know).

I'm sure she is not hiding from you - not being an IOM sailor, she probably has not read your question.

She had a staff of 3 helpers to do weights and floating, and I helped for a while so they could take lunches.

Roy and I helped out late Saturday night when a bunch of folks came in on a 9pm flight and needed to get measured for the morning's races.

One thing struck me - perhaps we should think about weight and float as part of the initial measurement, just so folks know where they are weight-wise.

We had at least 20 boats weight in very light - and then stayed on the scale, delaying the folks behind them, as they scrambled to add weight into the radio pot.

Seems like something that should have been looked into at home, and some sort of weight measurement paradigm added into the initial measurements might help.

I agree with your point on continuity. I've been working on updating the CCR's, Constitution, and Regulations and with Robert, the Class Rules. We wound up including items from the last 3 AGM's that had never been either included or approved by RSD until recently. IMHO, part of that is because sweeping changes in the make-up of the EXEC from one AGM to the next.

Perhaps it would be good to consider a Chairman/Chairman Elect type of scheme. Certainly makes sense.

The official with responsibility for counting the votes of the election, Anders Wallin, has re-issued a corrected count of the votes. Everyone has this.

The official with responsibility for counting the votes of the election has stated that the first vote count was incorrect.

No one can pick and chose the rules they wish to follow, and the rules they wish to disrgard or dispute.

How can that leave one of the candidates still acting as Chairman? How can that suggest that the candidates who are party to this dispute should work it out amongst themselves when one is installed as Chairman and insists on disregarding lawful World Coucil rules?

The "resolutions" that are being referred to are plain and simple not binding on anyone.

There is nothing in the IOMICA constitution or regulations or rules that allow for the passage of "resolutions" whatsoever. They are not "lawful World Council rules".

There was no change properly made in the only documents that govern our class--the constitution and regulations and rules--that mandate how block votes must be split.

In every past election held by IOMICA the question of how to allocate votes has never mattered because the voting was never close.

Neither Bruce nor Alfonso had anything to do with the counting of the votes for this election and neither created the problem we have today.

The longer, louder and more public this debate becomes the worse it will be for all of us. Unless we find an amicable resolution of this matter that satisfies all candidates, we will likely face years of disputes and bad feelings from any imposed solution.

As I previously stated, I strongly urge everyone to back off and let this be worked out. Let's not make this worse than it already is, please!

RoyL wrote:The longer, louder and more public this debate becomes the worse it will be for all of us. Unless we find an amicable resolution of this matter that satisfies all candidates, we will likely face years of disputes and bad feelings from any imposed solution.

You are right. If Bruce agree with me I think we should leave the members of the Exec take a few days and take a decision.

Thank you, Mike, for pointing out where the Constitution and Regulations are domiciled. That was the one tab I hadn't hit!

On page 4, section 8.8 of the Constitution, Resolutions are specifically addressed. Section 8.8.1 says that the Constitution may only be amended by "Special resoltion," and that requires a 2/3s vote per Section 8.8.2. Per Section 8.8.3, an "ordinary resolution" requires a simple majority vote.

The 2004 resolutions cited in Mr. Egea's post recieved a majority vote, but not a 2/3s majority (I assume those poll numbers at top were the votes cast). So were those presented as "ordinary resolutions" or "Special resolutions?" Beyond the situation at hand, it would seem to me that any resolution be identified for what it is and how it will affect the class' governance.

Brig: If you read the constitution and regulations carefully, you will find very specific procedures on how binding changes are enacted. These procedures involve specific advance notice and voting based on the number of boats registered/certificated in each NCA. Basically, they are the procedures that we all see in place during our Annual General Meetings.

It is 100 percent certain that this process for making binding changes in our governing documents was not used for the "resolutions" that are at the heart of the present mess.

The "resolutions" that were proposed in 2004 are a different kind of animal. It appears that they were some sort of "short-hand" procedure created by the Executive and/or World Council in 2004. Each NCA and member of the Executive was apparently given one vote. Nothing like this is provided for in the Class Constitution or Regulations. From reading the surrounding notes, it seems that the plan was at some later point to have these "resolutions" properly voted upon and made binding. However, that was never done.

So what value do they have? Clearly, they are an expression of the intent of the Executive and World Council from 2004. Do they mandate how NCA's today have to allocate their voting blocks? Seems pretty clear that is not the case. What is the best way to resolve this matter? Don't know. As they say, its "above my pay grade".

Part of me me thinks we should all just agree that this is a mess and run the whole election over with the rules all agreed upon and clearly spelled out in advance.

Most important thing to know is that neither Alfonso nor Bruce is the source of this problem.

RoyL wrote:The "resolutions" that are being referred to are plain and simple not binding on anyone.

I think this should say, "In the opinion of Roy, ...". Almost everyone else thinks that these resolutions are binding.

There is nothing in the IOMICA constitution or regulations or rules that allow for the passage of "resolutions"

Indeed. There is also nothing in the constitution or regulations, for example, which allows for the IOMICA regulations on how places shall be allocated to NCAs at International Championships. Yet such a document exists and is regarded as binding by all concerned.

In law, the articles of association of an organisation permit all actions which further the aims of that organisation. There does not have to be specific "permission" for them. The class association is not run under 'closed rules' -- anything not explicitly permitted is prohibited. On the contrary, the association runs under 'open rules' -- anything is permitted provided it is not ultra vires.

But in fact the Constitution permits World Council resolutions of the sort we are talking about:

IOMICA Constitution wrote:8.8.5. The IOM ICA Regulations may make provision for a ballot of Registered Owners to be required for certain classes of ordinary resolution. Member NCAs or Member NCSs may otherwise put ordinary resolutions to a ballot of their Registered Owners at their discretion.

There was no change properly made...

I think this should say, "In the opinion of Roy, ...". Almost everyone else thinks that these changes were properly made.

... in the only documents that govern our class--the constitution and regulations and rules

These are not the only documents that govern the class. I've mentioned one, the way places are allocated at championships. There are a number of others.

In every past election held by IOMICA the question of how to allocate votes has never mattered because the voting was never close.

It doesn't matter that it never mattered! What matters is that in every election the votes were counted in the way specified by the World Council resolutions. The claim that none of these votes were particularly close is quite irrelevant. (And there is no evidence that these votes were not close. No one knows whether they actually were close or not, because no alternative way of counting was done.)

And not only the elections. In every year, World Council votes on class rule changes, constitutional changes, regulation changes, and changes (yes, you guessed) to the class championship rules have been counted according to the resolutions.

Neither Bruce nor Alfonso had anything to do with the counting of the votes for this election...

Indeed.

... and neither created the problem we have today.

That is not quite correct. One of these has persisted in keeping their Exec position and exercising their Exec powers despite the fact that the official counter of the votes has declared the original count in error and despite the corrected re-count being known to all concerned.

Before this gets too far down the road - I must backtrack and retract vis-a-vis my earlier comments and Roy's correction.

Roy is, in fact, 100% correct in saying that in the US electoral college system it is up to individual states how they plan on divvy up their votes!

Of course, since allocating the entire block is the most advantageous to one's constituency - it is no surprise to see that 48/50 states have opted for that allocation method.

Nevertheless, I was under the (mistaken) impression that a system like this would require that the entire block (of each NCA or state) be allocated to the winner to even the playing ground and maximize each NCA's (state's) influence - but this is clearly not so.

I guess in our case, this is governed by the two resolutions from 2004 (whose legitimacy seems to be debated here).

The only reason I see that they should be questioned is if an individual NCA's Constitution or Regulations stipulates a distribution of votes that is different from that mandated by said resolutions. I have been saddled with an unenviable task of having to read various applicant-NCA's Constitution documents in the early (primordial) days of IOMICA and don't remember any of them mentioning any specific scheme for apportioning of their allotted blocks - though some may have changed since then (and there are many new members since then).

If there are any NCAs who have their specific (conflicting) methods of vote allocation spelled out in their own Const. or Regs - I would think that those NCAs would have grounds to challenge the 2004 resolutions. If not - I don't see what grounds there are to do so now...

Even if we are to ignore the resolutions and ask NCAs to decide themselves how to allocate their votes - I would imagine that (assuming everyone acts in their own best interest and now that the results of voting are known and public) those that voted for the candidate that won their NCAs voting would want the full block allocated to their choice (to maximize his/her gain) while those who voted for the candidate that lost within their NCA would want the block apportioned (to minimize the damage to their chosen candidate). Either way - by definition, of course, there would be more of former than of the latter (since that is how the candidate won the NCA to begin with) so, clearly, the choice would be to allocate the full block to the winner...

Of course, the above is just logical and not necessarily democratic so I doubt whether it is relevant...

The best suggestion I've seen so far was Alfonso's:

Alfonso wrote:If Bruce agree with me I think we should leave the members of the Exec take a few days and take a decision.

If we keep this (very public) debate going on it is bound to escalate and spiral out of control... I am fairly encouraged that (considering how sensitive and fundamental the issue) it has been pretty civil so far. But seeing as Lester has already started dissecting micro-quotes and Roy had already dispensed a few of his sophisms, I fear that we are only 2-3 posts away from a global obliteration...

Take a few days guys - discuss privately... Include Alfonso and Bruce... I'm sure a logical and acceptable solution can be found. Failing that - a mutually agreeable arbitrator would be the next logical step. Re-doing the election is not a viable choice (IMHO anyway)...